Whoever that may or may not be, we have not got around to compulsory eradication in this House yet and we do not intend to. I do not think that comparison is well taken.
The sheep industry was mentioned here and was described by Deputy Clinton in reasonable terms as not being in a happy position generally. We must go by the common indicators. While admitting and agreeing it was a difficult year so far as wool prices and wool disposal were concerned—and indeed man-made fibres are making further inroads on the need for raw wool of the type we have here which does not augur too well for the future of the wool trade—nevertheless wool is only one part of the sheep and a relatively small part, financially speaking. The sheep trade as a whole has been and continues to be pretty sound. At times this year it was extremely good. The small contribution we made to the mountain sheepbreeder this year has been very much appreciated. The House will be aware that the lamb subsidy scheme this year which was directed towards Black-Face and Cheviot breeds has brought to mountain sheep-farmers about £176,000 in direct subsidy without any tags attached or sale conditions as applied in the previous scheme initiated the year before. I have met a number of these people and they are quite satisfied that, so far as we have gone with this scheme, it has worked out quite satisfactorily. I had no real complaints about its administration but I had much praise for its impact and the manner of administration this year. I feel it will have done a considerable amount for hill sheep-farmers who represent no small part of our sheep industry. Prices have been good and fairly steady and demand has been reasonably good, taking a good period back over the year, and present indications seem to be set fair for the coming year.
Deputy Clinton and Deputy Tully spoke of the beef export subsidy and a remark made by either or both of them at the time, of which I took a note, was to the effect that producers do not know enough about how to get paid the subsidy direct and have to wait an unduly long time for the subsidy payment. They went on to calculate how much this could mean and the impact on the farmers who had to wait a considerable time. While this might be true in the initial stages—the direct payment arrangement is only a short time in operation—and because of the upset caused by foot and mouth restrictions, a great deal of trading has not taken place in this way since then, but, suffice to say, the direct payment scheme is now operating through the dead meat factories and it means in essence that the price offered on any particular day for the animal as heretofore is now capable of being broken into two parts and that the farmer can get the price plus the subsidy as a separate payment, subject to bringing the animal to the factory and filling in a form so that we have a record afterwards.
As regards the passing of these claims, if there has been any undue delay—I do not anticipate there will be any in the future—we should realise that farmers are not accustomed nowadays, particularly with marts operating as they are throughout the country, to getting cash in hand as in the old days when we had fairs only in the different towns. Now, they rather get it a week or ten days later and this applies to any produce they sell through the marts. If they have to wait for part of their money which comes through the Department while the claim is being processed, I do not see that it should be any undue hardship and is less of a hardship, if anything, than is involved in selling an animal through the mart and getting a cheque a week or ten days later. We should be able to serve the farmers under this scheme in regard to these payments with about the same expedition as the marts. I do not think that this is something that should scare people off applying for the direct subsidy. I doubt if it has done so.
The direct subsidy to the farmers as we have brought it into being probably has not a great deal to commend it, other than that you can get the subsidy in a separate payment and know the subsidy content of the total price. I do not claim that it has any great advantages for the farmer but, candidly, after a great deal of examination of various suggestions I and my Department concluded that it was the only way in which the farmer could have the option of getting the subsidy direct rather than lumped in with the price, a procedure which led to some complaints, probably with justification in recent years. I am not claiming any great advantages for this system. It is something that was sought and is now being given in what we think is the best way and, as I said before, if anybody knows of a better way I should be only too glad to hear of it and put it into operation. Until we get a better one—I doubt if there is one—this system will operate and I hope the farmers for their own sake will avail of it at any rate occasionally just to keep the records straight and satisfy themselves what the subsidy content of the price is at any given time. It will probably give them the satisfaction of knowing that they are not being taken short by reason of the lumping of price and subsidy together.
Deputy Tully spoke about grants for milk-coolers and said that possibly one of the reasons why more people had not applied for them is that they may not have electricity on their farms. That is true for a small section of farmers but I do not think it would explain any short-fall in regard to applications for milk-coolers. Rather I would think the reason why we have not had so many applications in the past six or eight months was that at the time of the introduction of the milk-cooler subsidy the milk production season was then in full swing. We were right in the middle of it and it was unlikely at that stage that anybody who had not already arranged to procure a milk-cooler for that season would be encouraged to get one, even with the incentive of the grant. I should expect the demand to be correspondingly higher in the early part of this year when the general milk season is ahead of us. I hope this will be so and that as a result more farmers not yet earning the bonus for quality milk will qualify because this would help them to secure it.
As I said earlier, the overall percentage earning this bonus has gone up beyond our projections. We are very glad that it is higher than we expected but we believe the milk-cooler scheme can further add to this scheme to produce high quality milk. When we introduced the scheme, it was my hope that in a few years time we would not have two grades of milk being sent to the creameries but that it would be all quality milk.
It was mentioned here that the matter of the safeguards imposed by the British Minister of Agriculture, in regard to the import of meat from countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic, was one on which we should make every effort to make our voice heard. We have done this; we have missed no opportunity of having our say in this matter, which, however, is something that is finally determined by the British Minister and the British Government. While we have made our plea in this regard already, and will again at any time in the future when we feel it will be useful to say anything in this context, we must keep in mind that it is a matter that is not for us to decide. In the final analysis, it is the British Government who must make the final decision.
There is one other matter mentioned by Deputy Coughlan about bacon factories. He referred to the closing of bacon factories and attributed this to an inadequate supply of pigs. The number of factories at the moment is about the same as we have had, take or give one, for many years past. For 20 to 30 years there has not been much difference in the number of factories operating in the country. It is also true to say that the number of pigs going into the factories even last year was higher than the number in any year for 20 years before 1960. While it is true that during the years from 1960 to 1965 there was a rising graph in the supply, again, we have to keep the matter in context and realise that when we have had this set-back in production, this downward cycle, which has lasted longer than heretofore or than had been expected, the same number of factories today as we had pre-1960 have got more pigs during the past 12 months than in any of the 20 years immediately prior to 1960. To attribute any closure to inadequacy of supply is, obviously, not the entire answer by any means.
I may say, also, in regard to the decline over these last couple of years, that the number of sows and gilts in pig, at a count last June and at a short count, as it were, in January of this year shows a small but, nevertheless, significant trend upwards again. We hope that this trend will continue and that during the year 1968 not only will the downward trend evidenced over the last couple of years have been arrested but that the numbers will begin to climb again and that factories which may have had difficulty and which undoubtedly, have been in competition with each other in getting sufficient supply, will find that this difficulty will gradually disappear and that our overall pig numbers can be raised substantially above that attained two years ago.
We aim not merely at restoring the number that we had a couple of years ago, but it is my hope and intention to try to bring about a situation and atmosphere in the pig and bacon industry in which there would be a substantial increase, gradual, no doubt, but nevertheless real, over the next two or three years.
I would hope also that the increase looked for will come mainly from the western counties where the production and fattening of pigs in very much greater number than is now the case would be not only good for the country but particularly good for the farmers and especially the small farmers of the western areas. This is my intention. We are trying to find ways and means of encouraging such a move and of these the House will, in due course, I hope, hear more in greater detail.
The overall situation is that scarcely anybody will disagree that this additional money is needed and, in various ways, is being used for very useful purposes in our primary industry and, large though this demand is, I think the House will agree to the provision in order that we may continue to fund those who are dependent to some degree on these various supports.
Of the total amount of money going to agriculture, directly and indirectly, the indirect part is a matter to which other members of the community should occasionally have regard. I do not intend to analyse this at the moment. Suffice it to say that while the total overall figure, direct and indirect, is very substantial, approaching £70 million during the current year, we should not allow it to be thought that this is overdoing it and that it is not in a very worthy and useful cause. We are supporting this industry in these various ways, directly and indirectly, for the very good reason that we recognise its value and importance. To those who have no connection with farming operations I would point out that not all of this money is a direct hand-out or dole to farmers, that a large part of it is directed in other necessary ways. It is computed that the direct payments as well as the indirect arrive at this total figure which, as I say, is substantial and represents a heavy burden on the taxpayers as a whole but, if it is examined, it will be realised that it is to quite a degree not direct payment to the farmers and where it is direct that it is doing a useful job in our most important industry on which all taxpayers to a greater or lesser degree depend for their very existence and for the better way of life which they may be enjoying as a result of agriculture doing its job as efficiently as it does, and has done, despite all the difficulties over the years.
